it's good to examine
The key to fully comprehending this piece is examining it in person, which we can't. Based on the aspects we've hashed over here it's most likely a reproduction. I would say the most incriminating evidence would be the sellers treatment. The fact it's die cut precludes it from being a Kinko's color copy anyone could make with little effort...and puts it in an advanced reproduction category. The question then becomes, was it intended to deceive or was it intended just as a neat novelty. Is the faded appearance from poor photography or was it fatigued to deceive? Who made it, where was it made? how many were made? The science of how this came to be is interesting and it's good for us to examine if for nothing else just to be familiar with reproductions. Initially when I first posted the thread, I didn't know what useful info I'd garner...ideally it would have been nice if someone would have said..."oh yeah I had those made years ago just for fun". Then we could have gotten to the bottom of the who what where. But we have what we have from our community, and I'd say Net54 is probably the best place on the planet to discuss it based on the collective experience here.
|